There's Something about a Fair Split: Intentionality Moderates Context-Based Fairness Considerations in Social Decision-Making

Fairness considerations are a strong motivational force in social decision-making. Here, we investigated the role of intentionality in response to unfair offers in the Ultimatum Game by manipulating both proposers' degree of control over the selection of offers and the context pertaining to the outcomes of offers proposers can choose from. As a result, the design enabled us to disentangle intention- and context-based decision-making processes. Rejection rates were higher when an unfair offer was intentionally chosen over a fair alternative than when it was chosen by the computer, outside proposers' control. This finding provides direct evidence for intention-based decision-making. Also, rejection rates in general were sensitive to the context in which an offer was made, indicating the involvement of both intention- and context-based processes in social decision-making. Importantly, however, the current study highlights the role of intention-based fairness considerations in basic decision-making situations where outcomes are explicitly stated and thus easy to compare. Based on these results, we propose that fairness can be judged on different, but additive levels of (social-) cognitive processing that might have different developmental trajectories.

[1]  D. D. de Quervain,et al.  The Neural Basis of Altruistic Punishment , 2004, Science.

[2]  Wouter van den Bos,et al.  Fairness considerations: increasing understanding of intentionality during adolescence. , 2009, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[3]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Social neuroeconomics: the neural circuitry of social preferences , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[4]  Toshio Yamagishi,et al.  Why Do People Reject Unintended Inequity? Responders' Rejection in a Truncated Ultimatum Game , 2005, Psychological reports.

[5]  Madan M. Pillutla,et al.  Unfairness, Anger, and Spite: Emotional Rejections of Ultimatum Offers , 1996 .

[6]  L. Thompson,et al.  Social Utility and Decision Making in Interpersonal Contexts , 1989 .

[7]  E. Fehr.  A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation , 1998 .

[8]  T. Yamagishi,et al.  Theory of mind enhances preference for fairness. , 2010, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[9]  U. Fischbacher,et al.  The nature of human altruism , 2003, Nature.

[10]  P. Blake,et al.  “I had so much it didn’t seem fair”: Eight-year-olds reject two forms of inequity , 2011, Cognition.

[11]  Gary E. Bolton,et al.  A stress test of fairness measures in models of social utility , 2005 .

[12]  Alan G. Sanfey,et al.  Affective state and decision-making in the Ultimatum Game , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[13]  K. Turley-Ames,et al.  Counterfactual thinking and false belief: the role of executive function. , 2011, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[14]  Ernst Fehr,et al.  Testing Theories of Fairness - Intentions Matter , 2000, Games Econ. Behav..

[15]  M. Rabin.  Published by: American , 2022 .

[16]  James K Rilling,et al.  The neural correlates of theory of mind within interpersonal interactions , 2004, NeuroImage.

[17]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  The Neural Basis of Economic Decision-Making in the Ultimatum Game , 2003, Science.

[18]  Serge A R B Rombouts,et al.  Unfair? It depends: neural correlates of fairness in social context. , 2010, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.

[19]  M. Sutter,et al.  Outcomes versus intentions: On the nature of fair behavior and its development with age , 2007 .

[20]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Fairness and the Assumptions of Economics , 1986 .

[21]  Rebecca Saxe,et al.  When ignorance is no excuse: Different roles for intent across moral domains , 2011, Cognition.

[22]  Uta Frith,et al.  The Biological Basis of Social Interaction , 2001 .

[23]  Martin Eiliv Sandbu.  Fairness and the roads not taken: An experimental test of non-reciprocal set-dependence in distributive preferences , 2007, Games Econ. Behav..

[24]  S. Blount.  When Social Outcomes Aren't Fair: The Effect of Causal Attributions on Preferences , 1995 .

[25]  N. Roese.  Counterfactual thinking. , 1997, Psychological bulletin.

[26]  J. Horowitz,et al.  Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments , 1994 .

[27]  W. Güth,et al.  An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining , 1982 .

[28]  James H. Fowler,et al.  Egalitarian motives in humans , 2007, Nature.

[29]  U. Fischbacher,et al.  On the Nature of Fair Behavior , 1999 .

[30]  Armin Falk,et al.  A Theory of Reciprocity , 2001, Games Econ. Behav..

[31]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Chimpanzees Are Rational Maximizers in an Ultimatum Game , 2007, Science.

[32]  E. Fehr,et al.  Altruistic punishment in humans , 2002, Nature.

[33]  M. Zeelenberg,et al.  Take it or leave it for something better? Responses to fair offers in ultimatum bargaining , 2009 .

[34]  D. Tranel,et al.  Irrational Economic Decision-Making after Ventromedial Prefrontal Damage: Evidence from the Ultimatum Game , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[35]  F. Cushman.  Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment , 2008, Cognition.

[36]  Michael Koenigs,et al.  Economic decision-making in psychopathy: A comparison with ventromedial prefrontal lesion patients , 2010, Neuropsychologia.

[37]  W. Nelson.  Equity or intention: it is the thought that counts , 2002 .

[38]  F. Van Overwalle.  Social cognition and the brain: A meta‐analysis , 2009, Human brain mapping.

[39]  Jordan Grafman,et al.  The functional neuroanatomy of depression: Distinct roles for ventromedial and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex , 2009, Behavioural Brain Research.

[40]  U. Fischbacher,et al.  Social norms and human cooperation , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[41]  Daniel Houser,et al.  Competing demands of prosociality and equity in monkeys , 2010 .

[42]  Erte Xiao,et al.  Inequality-Seeking Punishment , 2009 .

[43]  Jordi Brandts,et al.  Reference Points and Negative Reciprocity in Simple Sequential Games , 2001, Games Econ. Behav..

[44]  L. Festinger.  A Theory of Social Comparison Processes , 1954 .

[45]  William Robert Nelson,et al.  Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics: Comment , 2001 .

[46]  Bram P. Buunk,et al.  Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research , 2000 .

[47]  Hilla Peretz,et al.  Ju n 20 03 Schrödinger ’ s Cat : The rules of engagement , 2003 .